DOCUMENT RESUME ED 395 346 CS 509 256 AUTHOR Wolff ... · forensics coaches incorporate appraisal...
Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 395 346 CS 509 256 AUTHOR Wolff ... · forensics coaches incorporate appraisal...
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 395 346 . CS 509 256
AUTHOR Wolff, DenelleTITLE Performance Appraisal Research Applied to
Forensics.PUB DATE Nov 95NOTE 23p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association (81st, San Antonio,TX, November 18-21, 1995).
PUB TYPE Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Reports- Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Attitude Measures; *Debate; *Educational Objectives;
Evaluation Methods; Higher Education; OccupationalSurveys; Public Speaking; Research Methodology;Student Centered Curriculum; *Student Evaluation;*Student Needs; *Teacher Student Relationship
IDENTIFIERS *Debate Coaches
ABSTRACTA study examined the extent to which college level
forensics coaches incorporate appraisal techniques into the forensicssetting. A survey, based on a review of organizational literature,was distributed to coaches at a midwestern forensics tournament.Thirty-five surveys were distributed and 17 were returned for aresponse rate of 48%. The survey consisted of nine close-endedquestions and three cpen-ended questions. Survey questions measuredcoaches' practices and attitudes regarding three key elements ofperformance appraisal resf,arch: (1) a supportive climate, (2) goalsetting, and (3) participative or employee-centered goal setting.Results indicated that even though some coaches are using thesetechniques in coaching, a greater number of coaches agree with theconcepts than are actually using them. Results also showed thatcoaches have widely adopted strategies for generating a supportiveclimate. Yet taking this supportive climate to the extent ofparticipative goal setting is not as commonly practiced. The keyseems to be letting students do the talking, because only they trulyknow what they want out of a given activity. Participative goalsetting allows coaches to find out about the goals of individualcompetitors. Because the students create the goals, there isinsurance that the coaches are not putting their goals onto thestudents and making them more involved in the activity than they wantto be. When the student and the coach have different expectations,frustration results. (Contains 19 references.) (TB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
Performance Appraisal Research Applied to Forensics
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
u0
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ot Educahonal Research and Improvement
EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
Denelle Wolff
North Dakota State UniversityBox 5075 University Station
Fargo, ND 58105-5075
2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Abstract
This study examines the extent to which college level forensics coaches
incorporate performance appraisal techniques into the forensics setting. A survey,
based on a review of organizational communication literature, was distributed to
coaches at a midwestern forensics tournament. The survey questions measured
coaches' practices and attitudes regarding three key elements of performance
appraisal research: a supportive climate, goal setting and participative or employee-
centered goal setting. The results indicate that even though some coaches are using
these techniques in coaching, a greater number of coaches agree with the concepts
than are actually using them. The results also show that coaches have widely
adopted strategies for generating a supportive climate. Yet taking this supportive
climate to the extent of participative goal setting is not as commonly practiced.
3
The classroom situation is only one forum for students to learn. Textbooks
and class lectures do teach valuable information, but this information can be greatly
enhanced outside of the classroom setting as well. A good way to find value in
:earning is to see the skills taught in the classroom being used in other situations. A
department that can provide these experiences and make them worthwhile is
successfully utilizing experiential education.
Allen Wutzdorff and Pat Hutchings (1988) furthered the idea that there are
three components essential to experiential learning: goal setting, reading the
environment and reflecting. I would like to focus on the final step, reflecting, and
introduce an opportunity for students to utilize this step in the learning process.
Reflecting allows students to think about what has been learned by the experience,
not only what they have done. In the work place, performance appraisals serve this
function. They provide an opportunity for workers to think about what they have
learned and hoW they are performing as well as how they have met their
supervisor's standards. The concept of performance appraisal applied to students'
experiential learning may be just as effective in enabling reflection.
The form of experiential learning that I will apply performance appraisal
research to is the experience of competitive forensics. Competitive forensics fits the
standards of experiential learning because it acts as a laboratory for public speaking
skills. In an article supplying a rationale for forensics, James H. McBath (1984)
describes forensics as "an expression of scholarship and forensics activities as
laboratories within which the results of student scholarship are evaluated" (p. 5).
1
4
-^77-771,1"7:1'.* 777:77.7.1717:74
' -:.,
More specifically, the range of events in forensics competition allow for the practice
of skills learned in a wide range of scholarship, from interpretation of literature to
logic and organization in writing. The purpose of forensics is explained by Steve
Hunt (1989), "The theory is that communication classes in rhetoric and public
address and oral interpretation reflect/ teach theory and practice that are necessary
and essential to life and that forensics individual events competition, in turn,
serves as a laboratory for the theory and practice of communications classes" (p. 34).
Therefore we can utilize performance appraisal research to better fulfill the
reflection element of experiential learning by applying it to the forensics laboratory
experience. This paper will use previous performance appraisal research to identify
areas where this research can benefit the forensics experience and show the extent to
which these ideas are being used by the forensics community. Applications of this
research not only include the activity of forensics, but can extend to other types of
experiential learning as well.
Research into performance appraisals typically centers around the work
environment. Performance appraisals are usually looked at from the standpoint of
employer/employee relations and how appraisal of an employee can maximize that
employee's performance on the job. However, the same techniques that have been
shown to be effective in the work place may also be applied to other performance
situations; namely coaching competitive forensics.
In many ways, the relationship of a coach to a student is similar to the
employer/employee relationship. One party has the power and expertise in the
2
situation, and he or she wants to show the other party how to be successful. In dohlg
this, the employee/student performs and is appraised on that performance, then
suggestions are given to improve future performance. The correlation between the
two situations is strong; suggesting that forensic coaches may learn from
performance appraisal research.
This study raises the question, "To what extent do college forensic coaches
incorporate performance appraisal techniques into the forensic setting?"
Performance appraial research is summarized and focused into the areas of a
supportive climate, goal setting and participative goal setting, with implications
drawn for the use of these techniques in forensic coaching.
It has long been known that supportive relationships between the evaluator
and the one being evaluated are vital to successful performance appraisal. Likert
(1967) found that performance appraisals have a more positive effect on the
subordinate's performance in the work place when a supervisor is perceived as
supportive by the subordinate. Latham and Saari further supported these findings
(1979). Since these earlier studies, additional research has questioned why this is so
and asked how these supportive relationships can be best utilized.
A supportive relationship can first be developed in the way an evaluator
approaches a performance appraisal. Three main types of interview styles are
common: the tell and sell method, the tell and listen method, and the problem
solving method (Wilson & Goodall, 1991). In the tell and sell method, the
evaluators take almost all of the responsibility for the appraisal. They decide on the
3
6
best appraisal and then sell their ideas for improvement to the subordinate. With
the tell and listen method, the evaluator tells the subordinate what he or she thinks
is a fair appraisal, and then listens to the subordinate's point of view. This way any
negative feelings on the part of the employee can be released. The problem solving
approach, however, relies on equal participation between employer and
subordinate. In this method, the employee evaluates his or her own performance,
and the employer listens and summarizes thoughts and problems as well as reflects
his or her own opinions of the employee's appraisal. In this way they work together
in order to solve specific problems that may arise rather than having one party
simply evaluate the other.
Dugan (1989) argues that because the problem solving approach involves
employees, it is very effective in creating a successful performance appraisal.
Participation helps create a supportive climate because it reduces the equivocality or
uncertainty on the part of the employee, allowing for a relaxed atmosphere
contributing to better communication. "Humans in organizations need to process
information collectively in order to reduce the information uncertainty they face in
their activity" (Swanson, 1992, p. 68). The problem solving method allows for this
collective processing of information.
This method also creates a result that is more likely to be accepted by both
parties. Subordinates often dislike performance appraisals because they feel that they
do not have an opportunity to express themselves and because they feel they are
unfairly appraised (Kirkpatrick, 1986). In the problem solving method, subordinates
4
7
can express themselves and are unlikely to feel unfairly appraised because they
appraise themselves. As Erhart (1976) states, "The common problem of resistance to
change is nonexistent, because a person not only approves but accepts his or her
own conclusion" (p. 240). Better communication leads to more support for the
appraisal from the employee's point of view.
In the experience of forensics, the tell and sell method seems to be used
frequently. Students perform for coaches and then are often told what they did
wrong or right. However, the same support for the problem solving approach may
be valuable here also. Instead of the coach bringing up things that need to be
changed, there may be a way to let the student do the talking. They can start by
telling what they feel is right or wrong about their performance. Coaches can listen
and evaluate, adding their own expertise to help students solve problems that they
have observed.
Speech critiques from tournament judges can serve as a tool for students to
evaluate their own performance. Once students have recognized and accepted
problems or concerns, the coach can work to solve them. This would enable
students to take a more active role in the appraisal and create a more supportive
climate.
A second area of performance appraisal that can be applied to forensics is the
use of goal setting. Research has shown that setting goals is crucial in performance
appraisal because it improves attitudes and leads to increased performance
(Ivancevich, 1982; Latham & Locke, 1979; Latham & Yukl, 1976; Locke & Latham,
5
1984; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). The use of goals gives the worker
something to strive for before the next meeting.
Specific goals allow for more goal clarity, acceptance and commitment (Tziner
& Kopelman, 1988 & Tziner, Kopelman, & Livnech, 1993). Behavior observation
scales (BOS) are one method of evaluation that pinpoint the specific desired and
undesired actions to be taken or avoided (Latham & Wexley, 1981). These scales
have been shown to be the best evaluation tool for setting goals that are specific
(Tziner et al., 1993), because they focus on specific behaviors rather than evaluating
overall performance. Tziner & Kopelman (1988) and Tziner et al. (1993) found that
performance improved significantly using this BOS process because of the
advantages of specific goals.
Goals also need to be difficult to achieve. Latham and Saari (1979) found that
high goals result in higher performance than easy goals. When the goals are too
easy, their achievement does little to enhance performance. When all of these
principles are applied, goals become an essential part of the performance appraisal
process.
In forensics, the aspects of goal setting can also be applied. Instead of simply
giving suggestions and solving problems in a coaching session, coaches can help
students set goals for upcoming meetings and tournaments. When competitors
have a specific task to work on, it can make their practice time much more
productive. As Wutzdorff and Hutchings (1988) explain, "the goal-setting process . . .
becomes a key element in reflection. A student who has internalized a concrete set
6
of goals can use them as an ongoing measure of her performance (p. 66). The goal-
setting process is essential for the reflective experiential learning that forensics
provides.
Goal setting can accomplish the same results here as with traditional
performance appraisals in the work place, as long as they meet the same guidelines
and are based on specific performance aspects and are fairly difficult to achieve.
Therefore the students have to put in work to accomplish them.
The next step in performance appraisal is to combine the aspects of a
supportive climate and goal setting into what can 1-e described as participative goal
setting. In this model, the goals are jointly deveioped in a supportive climate so
that the goals are accepted by both parties. .fjosvold and Halco (1992) found that
"Cooperative goals appear to induce positive expectations, the open and
constructive discussion of views, and quality feedback, which in turn are related to
motivation and confidence in future collaboration" (p. 637). Participative goal
setting not only provides for acceptance of goals, but allows for a higher probability
of the accomplishment of those goals.
Participative goal setting also helps in the process of setting difficult goals,
which increase levels of performance. Latham and Saari (1979) found that
supportive behavior by the manager leads to the setting of hard goals, and
participation leads to an understanding of how they can be attained.
In forensics, participative goal setting may be the key to successful coaching.
These goals could lay a framework for student practice and give the students a
7
10
climate in which they can actively participate in the planning of their competitive
future. The role of participative goal setting in developing difficult goals that are
accepted by the students may be of help to coaches in motivating their competitors.
Method
The data for this study was obtained from a survey distributed at a
midwestern university's collegiate tournament, including seventeen schools
representing five states, in the fall of 1994. The surveys were distributed to forensic
coaches and graduate coaches at the tournament. Thirty-five surveys were
distributed and seventeen were returned for a response rate of 48.6%. The identity of
respondents was kept confidential, however, they were asked to indicate their
gender and years of coaching experience.
The survey consisted of nine closed-ended questions and three open-ended
questions. The questions dealt with the three areas of performance appraisal
discussed above: supportive climate, goal setting and participative goal setting.
Eight of the close ended questions asked the coaches to respond to a statement by
circling always, sometimes, rarely, never, or unsure. The final question used the
wording of strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree or unsure. The
responses were weighted by giving four points for always or strongly agree, three for
sometimes or agree, two for rarely or disagree, one for never or strongly disagree,
and the unsure responses were isolated and not used in calculations. The mean was
calculated for each question.
For the three open-ended questions, clusters of responses were determined
8
1 1
based on the three areas of performance appraisal discussed earlier. An operational
definition was formulated for each cluster and the responses were analyzed and
categorized according to the definitions. If a comment mentioned subjects relevant
to more than one category, it was coded into each of the appropriate categories. If a
single respondent gave more than one comment in the same category, only the first
comment was recorded.
Results
Questions number one, two and seven dealt with the idea of using the
problem solving method of evaluation in coaching sessions. The results are shown
in table 1.
Table 1
Mean of Scores for Problem Solving Questions
Question Mean
1. When coaching students, I allow them to come up with their 3.59own appraisal of their performance.
2. In coaching sessions with students, I do most of the talking. 2.82
7. Students I coach disagree with me when I point out problems 2.82in their performance.
Always =4, Sometimes=3, Rarely=2, Never=1
These results show that the problem solving method of appraisal is being
used by coaches. This is evident by the high score fOr coaches allowing students to
appraise themselves. Coaches also seemed to feel that most of the time students did
9
12
most of the talking in coaching sessions, as is evident by the score of 2.82 for
question two. This is another aspect of the problem-solving approach. As a result of
this approach, students should agree with the appraisal outcomes. As we can see by
the results of question seven, coaches do feel that students are agreeing with the
appraisals they receive.
Table 2
Mean of Scores for Goal Setting Quesfions
Question
3. My students come out of a coaching session with goals toaccomplish before the next session.
4. My students set goals that require effort outside of coachingsessions.
Mean
3.41
3.53
5. The goals developed in coaching sessions relate to specific 3.29changes in students' written work and/or performance.
Always =4, Sometimes=3, Rarely=2, Never=1
Table 2 shows the results of questions related to goal-setting. The mean of
question number three shows that goals are being used to a large extent in coaching
sessions. Question number four is meant to measure the level to which the goals
created are difficult to achieve, which increases their chance of being accomplished.
This score was very high, indicating that coaches do push students toward goals that
require extra effort. The level to which goals set are specific is measured by question
number five. The mean of this question is not as high as the other two. It shows
10
13
that coaches do set specific goals, but in many situations only general goals are set.
Table 3
Mean of Scores for Participative Goal Setting Questions
Question Mean
6. My students set their own goals in practice sessions. 2.82
8. Students don't interpret the goals that we've developed in 2.47coaching sessions in the same way I do.
9. I feel that students are more likely to improve performance 3.38if they set their own standards.
Numbers six and eight: Always =4, Sometimes=3, Rarely=2, Never=1Number nine: Strongly Agree=4, Agree=3, Disagree=2, Strongly Disagree=1
Table three displays results for questions which measured the level of
participative goal setting used by the coaches. Question six has a fairly low score,
falling between rarely and sometimes. But surprisingly, the score of question eight
shows that coaches still feel that the students understand the goals developed. This
is surprising because participative goal setting increases likelihood that goals will be
understood by students.
Even though coaches are not usiag participative goal setting often, the result
of question nine shows that they still feel that using this method would be more
effective. Their actions do not reflect their feelings on this method of goal-setting.
Open-ended Questions
There were three open-ended questions asked on the survey:
11
14
1. What role does goal setting play in your individual coaching sessions?
2. What strategies do you use to give students the opportunity to assess their
own performance?
3. How would you recommend that new coaches implement a student-
centered approach to coaching sessions?
The responses were coded into six categories.
Problem Solving. Any comment that mentioned an aspect of the problem-
solving approach to performance appraisal as a positive coaching tool.
Goal Setting. Any comment that referred to goal-setting as a positive device
in coaching sessions.
General Goal Setting. Any positive comment that mentioned setting goals
which are broad and general.
Specific Goal Setting. Any positive mention of setting goals which are specific
and refer to specific changes in students' written work or performance.
Participative Goal Setting. Any positive reference to goals which are set
jointly with the student or entirely by the student.
Other. The mention of effective coaching techniques which do not fall into
categories of student participation or goal-setting.
There were a total of 52 comments coded. Some of the comments were coded into
more than one category; especially comments about goal setting which often were
coded under goal setting and specific or general goal setting. However many of the
goal setting comments did not refer to one specific type and were only coded under
12
15
the goal setting category.
Table 4
Summary of Comments by Category
# of comments % of N*
Problem Solving 16 31%
Goal Setting 14 27%
General Goal Setting 7 13%
Specific Goal Setting 6 12%
Participative Goal-Setting 10 19%
Other 9 17%
*N = 52
As indicated in table 4, the most common type of comment related to the
problem solving approach to performance appraisal. By their comments, coaches
seem to see the benefits of this type of coaching session and use it to their benefit.
For example, "I frequently ask after a practice performance very general questions
well, what do you think?" One coach applies this type of evaluation to peer critique
sessions. "Sit in on sessions to help guide, but let the students do the majority of the
critique-type talk." However one problem with this approach was brought up.
"After the first performance of the session, I always ask what they thought about
13
16
their performance. Sometimes they don't know."
There were also many comments relating to goal setting. Some of the
comments were very general such as " I always determine two main goals for
students to work on." Other comments specifically referred to goals that were very
general or goals that were very specific. As Table 4 shows, these two types of goals
were mentioned about an equal amount. Even though specific goals are more often
attained, coaches use both types of goals in their coaching sessions, and some even
found more value in general goal setting. "In terms of overall goal setting, I do
more in terms of long-range goals for an individual vs. specific goals for an event."
One interesting comment found reason to discourage goal setting in some
cases. "Depends on the student, some students react to goals better than others do. I
think tha: coaching for objectives is good but there are other students that this
hindered." Another coaches had trouble incorporating goal setting at all.
Participative goal setting wasn't mentioned as often as nonparticipative goal
setting. However, some coaches did find it very useful. "Writing down the
goal/outcome and keeping track bf progress makes it easier for students to track and
develop own goals for next session or next event." The idea of participative goal-
setting was described well by one comment, "don't put your goals onto your
students. Ask lots of questions and find out what they want to accomplish and help
them to work towards that."
The last category on Table 4 refers to other suggestions that coaches gave for
effective coaching. These included the use of videotape, peer coaching sessions,
14
17
ballot analysis, sessions individualized for the performer, and repeating
performances in practice sessions.
Discussion
This survey did indicate that performance appraisal techniques, shown to be
effective in the work place, are being used by forensic coaches to coach students.
Coaches are already noticing the benefits of incorporating performance appraisal
techniques into their coaching. Yet even more of this can be done. Coaches seem to
be widely accepting and using the idea of generating a supportive climate, yet taking
this climate to the extent of participative goal setting isn't as widely used.
The key seems to be in letting students do the talking, because only they truly
know what they want out of the activity. In this way forensics is different from the
job setting. In a job context, an employee is expected to meet certain standards. In
most forensics programs, the standards are determined by the individual students.
The activity is there to help them meet whatever goals they have. Participative goal
setting allows coaches to find out about the goals of individual competitors. Because
the students create the goals, there is insurance that the coach is not putting their
goals onto the students and making them more involved in the activity than they
want to be. When the student and coach have different expectations from the
activity, frustration results for both parties.
The fact that coaches feel that participative goal setting is important is a step
in the right direction. However, the results also showed that their use of the
technique is not in line with their feelings about it. This indicates that coaches
15
18
sometimes know about superior coaching techniques, but have trouble
implementing them. As one coach noted, "Perhaps it is more effective to help
students determine their own goals. As a new coach, I realize I don't often do this
I tend to be more directive of students. I'm not sure this is very effective." Here is a
case where more experienced coaches can help the new coaches implement some
effective coaching techniques.
Even though the research shows that specific goals, such as rewriting an
introduction, allow for more goal clarity and achievement, coaches seem to be
letting their students set general goals, such as qualifying for nationals, just as often.
But as long as specific goals are also being set, the general goals may act as an
effective supplement to the day to day goals. Using both types of goals may utilize
the effectiveness of both approaches, as long as specific goals are not reduced in
order implement general goals.
Some coaches mentioned that the answers to their questions depended highly
on the level of experience of each individual competitor. They gave the more
experienced performers more of a chance to appraise themselves, while giving more
direction to the less experienced competitors. One coach commented that
sometimes when he asks students how they did, they reply that they don't know.
These students would need more direction in coaching than the students who can
effectively assess their performance. This survey did not allow for this difference in
judging style, which is a topic for a possible future study. It also may be interesting
to look at this type of coaching from a student's perspective. Do students want such
16
19
an active role in the coaching process and do they view their participation as vital to
success? It may be that students view the coaching process differently from their
coaches.
This study has shown that performance appraisal research can effectively be
applied to the experiential learning context of forensics. It enables coaches to better
utilize their coaching sessions as the reflection step in experiential education.
Instead of using forensics as a way to earn trophies and admiration, students can
also use the forensics setting to apply and extend the knowledge gained in the
classroom.
These results also help enforce the importance of reflection in any
experiential learning situation as well as the role performance appraisal research can
have in that reflection. The concepts developed in performance appraisal research,
while highly applicable to forensics, can be used for any outside learning experience.
The concepts of a supportive climate, goal setting and participative goal setting can
enhance the reflection of any experience which fills an educative goal.
17
2 0
References
Dugan, K.W. (1989). Ability and effort attributiolts: Do they affect how managers
communicate performance feedback information? Academy of Management
ottr.1_,Ial Si 87-114.
Erhart, J.F. (1976). The performance appraisal interview and evaluation of student
performances in speech communication courses. Communication Education,
25, 237-245.
Hunt, S. (1989). A philosophic and pragmatic rationale for individual events. In L.
Schnoor Sr V. Karns (Eds. ) , Perspective on individual events: Proceedings of
the first developmental conference on individual events (pp. 33-36).
Mankato, MN: Speech Department Mankato State University.
Ivancevich, J.M. (1982). Subordinates' reactions to performance appraisal interviews:
A test of feedback and goal-setting techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology,
67(5), 581-587.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1986). Performance appraisal: Your questions answered. Training
and Development Journal, 68-71.
Latham, G.P., Sr Lock, E.A. (1979). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works.
Organizational Dynamics, 8, 68-80.
Latham, G.P., eir Saari, L.M. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal
setting. lcItuolczy., 64(2), 151-156.Latham, G.P. & Wexley, K.N. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance
appraisal. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Latham, G.P., & Yuld, G.A. (1976). Effect of assigned and participative goal setting on
21
performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166-171.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal-setting: A motivational technique that
works. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lock, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 20, 125-152.
McBath, J. H. (1984). Toward a rationale for forensics. In D. W. Parson (Ed. ) ,
American forensics in perspective (pp. 5-11). Annandale, VA: Speech
Communication Association.
Swanson, D.R. (1992). Forensics as a laboratory experience in organizational
communication. National Forensic Journal, 5(1), 65-76.
Tjosvold, D., & Halco, J.A. (1992). Performance appraisal of managers: Goal
interdependence, ratings and outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology,
132(5), 629-639.
Tziner, A., & Kopelman, R. (1988). Effects of rating format on goal-setting
dimensions: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, Za(2), 323-326.
Tziner, A., Kopelman, R., & Livnech, N. (1993). Effects of performance appraisal
format on perceived goal characteristics, appraisal process satisfaction, and
changes in rated job performance: a field experiment. The Journal of
Psychology, 127(3), 281-292.
17utzdorff, A. & Hutchings, P. (1988). An integrating seminar: Bringing knowledge
and experience together. In P. Hutchings & A. Wutzdorff (Eds. ) , Knowing
22